So actually all of Cantrill's worries with Oracle exist with Node.js's license. I am sad when I see large free software projects licensed under MIT, we are doing ourselves a disservice by allowing proprietary software to take advantage of the free software we've developed.
[1] It's part of his Fork Yeah! talk about the fork that is illumos.
On the other hand, I have nothing against CDDL. I think the incompatibility of CDDL with the GPL is what saved the illumos community (even if inadvertently) from having their technology cannibalized by GNU and Linux. I'm happy that BSD is benefitting from illumos (and vice versa), but I'm even more happy that Linux isn't. <--- I do not represent anyone but myself, the position expressed here is my own and not of anyone else.
Not proprietary software? Not "open source" licenses that don't allow modification (which is also proprietary)? The GPL? The thing that gave us free software in the modern world? Well, that's certainly one opinon.
> On the other hand, I have nothing against CDDL.
The CDDL has a provision that if any part is held unenforcible it will be modified to make it enforceable. As a matter of licensing, that's incredibly devious and bad. There's other super dodgy parts of the CDDL that make it a bad license purely from a license point of view, let alone from "freedoms given to users" perspective.
> I think the incompatibility of CDDL with the GPL is what saved the illumos community (even if inadvertently) from having their technology cannibalized by GNU and Linux.
What are you talking about? Why do you care if GNU/Linux takes your code and modifies it? No damage is done to the original.
> I'm happy that BSD is benefitting from illumos (and vice versa)
Actually, because CDDL is somewhat-but-not-really copyleft, many BSDs essentially have copyleft requirements if you enable ZFS or DTrace. Which is funny, given how much they go on about "freedom to make proprietary software" (something I'm against).
> I do not represent anyone but myself, the position expressed here is my own and not of anyone else.
Your position is also wrong.
This is more about the fact that when they take it it's worse for the project than a proprietary fork. When BSD/MIT/(other permissively licensed code) is used, modified, and re-licensed to GPL, the permissive project can't take those improvements without also re-licensing. The CDDL indeed saved illumos from being cannibalized and disappearing as a community. Had its features been easily ported to Linux without a licencing problem, the project would probably not have survived, simply due to the fact that there would have been few reasons to stick with it. It's not just about what code is out there, and you should know that.
>Actually, because CDDL is somewhat-but-not-really copyleft, many BSDs essentially have copyleft requirements if you enable ZFS or DTrace. Which is funny, given how much they go on about "freedom to make proprietary software" (something I'm against).
Only in regard to changes to DTrace and ZFS. Still totally fine to build proprietary versions of BSDs that include those pieces.
I won't go so far as the grandparent post here, but I'm one of those developers that couldn't give half a care about "user freedom". It's nice to have source as a developer, but my motivation has never been "freedom", insofar as using and understanding the software, so I understand where he's coming from in his complaints about the GPL. As a developer, it's more constraining than the permissive licenses out there. To some, that's a good thing.
Wait until you discover the BSD license, which lets you do whatever you want with the code... you might get a stroke (:-D)
GPL gave me no freedoms, it gave me the GNU userland tools and GNU/Linux (illumos / SmartOS and AT&T SVR4 tools are just fine, thank you, do not want GNU!)
http://www.blinkydog.com/wp-content/uploads/Dogs-Do-Not-Want...
GNU / GPL: DO NOT WANT!
> Your position is also wrong.
Luckily I don't have to license anything under the GPL, GPL cannot take that away from me as long as I don't link with the kernel code licensed under it, or derive code / work from it.
And I'll be extra careful I don't ever land myself in a position where I would have to license something under the GPL. Any other FOSS license is better than the GPL, I have no problem with open sourcing, and cannot wait to clean up my code in order to set it free.
But not under the GPL license.
Finally, CDDL is both FSF and OSI approved: the open source initiative looked over the CDDL license and deemed it to be in compliance with open source. I will take what is in my view their expert finding over your position, but thank you for sharing your opinion.
No, that's a pretty standard severability clause that helps the user. It means that if one section of the CDDL is found invalid, users can still use the software. The GPL on the other hand, by refusing to have a severability clause, means that if any part of the GPL, no matter how inconsequential, is found invalid, the entire license is null and void and no one can use it. That intentional omission makes the GPL a much more user-hostile license than it should be.
